Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 10 Mar 2019 10:48:17 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
Cc:     Alexander Usyskin <alexander.usyskin@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [char-misc] mei: convert to SPDX license tags
Message-ID: <20190310094817.GA2987@kroah.com>
References: <20190310100323.6912-1-tomas.winkler@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190310100323.6912-1-tomas.winkler@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 12:03:23PM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@intel.com>

I can not take patches without any changelog text.

Especially a patch that does not actually do what your subject: line
says it does.

> --- a/drivers/misc/mei/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/misc/mei/Makefile
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>  # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>  #
>  # Makefile - Intel Management Engine Interface (Intel MEI) Linux driver
> -# Copyright (c) 2010-2014, Intel Corporation.
> +# Copyright (c) 2010-2019, Intel Corporation.
>  #
>  obj-$(CONFIG_INTEL_MEI) += mei.o
>  mei-objs := init.o

As an example, why did you update this copyright line?  That has nothing
to do with the SPDX identifier :(


> --- a/drivers/misc/mei/client.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/mei/client.c
> @@ -1,17 +1,8 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>  /*
> + * Copyright(c) 2003-2019, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
>   *
>   * Intel Management Engine Interface (Intel MEI) Linux driver
> - * Copyright (c) 2003-2012, Intel Corporation.

Are you _SURE_ you mean to change the dates of the copyright in this
manner for this file (and elsewhere?)  Was the copyright really updated
every year for the past 7 years?

Please break this up into two (at the least) patches and resend as a
series.

This patch makes me feel like it is a kernel intern application process
patch, and that's not good, you all know better than this.  No, sorry, I
take that back, the intern application patches are of much higher
quality...

greg k-h